|
|
Every now and then some angst-filled postings are made on the Nikon mailing lists about the lack of a 35mm sized sensor digital camera from Nikon and/or lack of higher resolution. Usually, the posters want both and they want it now or at the least, an indication from Nikon that their needs will be met within a definite time period, so that they can plan accordingly to save up the needed capital resources. The usual rebuttals mention that although the digital SLRs we’ve come to know and now love have more than a passing relationship to their 35mm brethren, they really should not be compared directly against each other, as digital is a format onto its own, similarly to the relationship that a 35mm camera would have to say, a 645 medium format camera. Further rebuttals offer that the virtues of a full frame capture device is more marketing than a real physical need so long as the camera manufacturer has taken the necessary steps to address the wide-angle needs of its users.
Although Nikon does not have a high megapixel count camera at this time (yes, I am aware of the D1x’s 10 MP capabilities, but it’s not the same), there are indications that Sony, Nikon’s reputed supplier of CCD devices, is ready to roll out high resolution chips of at least 10 MP when Nikon gives the word. Everyone anticipates Nikon to announce such a high res camera by the fall of 2003 and the worse kept secret about what Nikon is going offer now, is that the D2H will be announced on July 22, 2003. What might have some Nikon photographers (or critics) worried and harping is that the D2H will be merely a 4 MP camera that will be able to fire at 8 fps. Sound a bit familiar? It sounds like nothing more than a copy of Canon’s 1D; however, it is expected that this D2H will have a much higher buffer capacity than the restricted 1D and that the already low-noise performance of the D1H will be surpassed, providing for even better high ISO capabilities. We should expect as much, since the Canon 1D has been out for a while now and Nikon would have to come up with real and significant performance enhancements if they expect to be in the lead of professional D-SLRs again. There is even rumour of a wireless option for transmitting files to the computer, which would be a Godsend for many pros, as long as the transmission speeds are fast like USB 2 or Firewire. The news coming for July 22 should make a lot of Nikon photojournalists happy in that the race for more resolution is less important to them than other features, such as the high ISO performance and large buffer capacity. There isn’t much point to an 8 fps camera if the buffer is filled within a few seconds, locking you out of capturing more action. July 22 may not be so good for the commercial photographer seeking more resolution, which may not be announced until fall, but hey, you never know. When Nikon does announce a 10 MP plus camera of their own, few are expecting it to be a full frame camera like the Canon 1Ds. Should this be a concern? The aforementioned 12-24 DX lens takes care of the true wide-angle needs of the majority of photographers and really, the 17-35 AF-S lens was already a meaningfully wide lens for the Nikon cameras with an equivalent 25-52 coverage, but you can never satisfy everyone. Even with the 12-24 lens shipping now, it does not satisfy those who “must” have a full frame camera. I’m not
certain what the attraction is given the very high cost of a full
frame camera. The Canon 1Ds is a $12,000 CAN camera and the 16-35mm
f2.8 lens needed to get the best out of the full frame is an additional
$2500 purchase. You’re looking at over $15,000 after taxes in
I have to make a presumption here, but I would expect the next high res Nikon D-SLR to be priced similarly to what the Nikon D1x was priced at when it first came out in 2001. This would be in the $7500 CAN range and adding in the 12-24 DX lens prices this combination at under $10,000. Neither figure above includes anything else required to operate the cameras, such as spare batteries and flash cards. The price premium from Canon is at least 50% more than what the projected Nikon costs will be. I know this is all conjecture at this point and it is not wise to get too far ahead in future prognostications, but given the higher costs of manufacturing full frame capture devices, I do not believe it is too far out of line to indicate that Nikon will be the more cost effective solution once they have a new camera announced. The actual point I wish to make is that if Nikon produces a 4000x2500 resolution chip in a half frame CCD, what more do you want. Additional DX series lenses are on their way with another rumour of a 9 or 10mm fisheye lens to be announced on July 22 as well. The number of photographers who need even wider performance than that is very small and although it is a big prestige factor to have a full frame D-SLR that can utilize existing 35mm format lenses, it’s not the end all be all that many would have us believe it is. And besides how many can afford that $12,000 camera to use with their existing 20mm and/or other wide-angle lenses, which is suppose to be the big attraction for a full frame camera. My primary concern (if I were able to afford anything more than my current D100) is for a high pixel count D-SLR. Full frame is not an important factor for me and if anything, I prefer the 12-24mm lens route to provide me with very wide-angle coverage without sacrificing the “free” teleconverter effect thanks to the 1.5x crop when using longer lenses. Many argue that 6 MP is what would satisfy the majority of amateur photographers with their photographic needs, perhaps even a great many professionals too. But that’s not me though. I’m greedy, I’m materialistic and I want very high resolution to allow either cropping of the image and still retaining a large print size, or being able to see tiny details in an enlargement – the kind of details that are lost when pushing a 6 MP file too much for an enlargement. Even 10 MP is not there yet since that only provides a 10x16 inch print at 240 dpi print resolution. That really is not significantly better than a 6 MP camera that can produce a 10x15 at a slightly lower 200 dpi resolution, but where the 10 MP camera should shine though is in the resolving of details that either get blurred over, lost in the noise, or were never captured at all by the 6 MP camera. The devil is in the details, as they say. There are reports of some photographers discarding their medium format systems for the Canon 1Ds. Well, if I were a commercial photographer looking at whether or not to invest in the latest digital backs or the Canon, the difference in cost is a big motivator, for as much as the 1Ds is expensive relative to other 35mm based D-SLRs, it is cheap compared to having to purchase a state of the art medium format digital back. The commercial photographer only has to have one system rather than two or three, as many did in the days of film (35mm, medium and large format). However, while a Canon 1Ds can make sense for the medium format photographer that was shooting film and then scanning, those with a need for state of the art will continue to have options that surpass what the 1Ds can offer. 20 MP plus backs are going to be rolling out very soon, if they haven’t already and these new ultra high res devices will be closer in size to 645 medium format, meaning the potential for some pretty incredible image quality. We just may see the days of 4x5 film finally being relegated to the historical dustbin, but not necessarily the cameras themselves thanks to their flexible movements for creative use of depth of field and focusing. In all this angst about what’s coming next from Nikon or Canon, I find it curious that serious amateur photographers wax lamentations as vexatious as some of the professionals. Now a professional crying for full frame and higher res can at least be explained as a need to generate income and they will want the tools that will allow them to generate that income. It is even more curious to me that people would look at the cost of the Canon 10D versus the Nikon D100 with a microscope and proclaim the $200 difference as being significant enough to warrant a wholesale change from Nikon to Canon. For $200?! Granted the 10D is a fine camera. Well built with good performance specifications, but not necessarily providing anything superior to what the D100 offers image wise, or even what the 10D’s predecessor, the D60 provided. But to go through the large loss of selling off the Nikon kit and then a large expense to buy a new Canon kit, on the basis of the 10D being a little more to up to date and $200 cheaper?! However, it is the person’s money and choice to make if that is what they wish to do. The fact that Canon has a full frame 1Ds available is a fallacy to me since the same people who would consider $200 worthy enough to switch are not going to be spending $12 grand on the 1Ds anytime soon. The fact that Canon has a number of spiffy lenses available is another fallacy since those same people will also not spend the large thousands for them either. And rental? How many rental dealers are going to have that exotic 50mm f1 lens for you to try out or that 1200mm f5.6 monster. Rental places will stock what the pros regularly rent and that does mean the popular 300mm f2.8 lenses amongst others, but as if they would have the lenses that people use as an excuse to switch. Regular readers of this site who have read some earlier articles may recall that I used the example of Canon’s varied lens line as a major reason why I contemplated a switch some years ago. Then I woke up and smelled the coffee as the caffeine slapped me on the side of the head when I realized that the fact that Canon has a $3000 50mm f1 lens or a similarly priced 85mm f1.2 is meaningless to me since they are so far out of reach for me. I cannot even afford to buy Nikon’s 85mm f1.4, which is half the cost of the Canon lens.
Where does it go from here? One often makes choices on a personal subjective basis. A person picking up a 10D may fall in love with it and consider it the ultimate for their photography. If so, that’s fine, nothing wrong with admitting that you prefer one camera or system to another and if you’re okay with the financial hit of switching, full power to you. But don’t use other people’s reasons for changing over. What relevance does it have for a commercial studio or other photographer buying a Canon 1Ds to your personal photography? Example: I read what Moose Peterson has to say about Nikon gear and other accessories; however, what Moose has to say about a large number of the gear he likes has no bearing on me because Moose is a top-notch wildlife photographer and I am not. His needs are completely different than mine and his choice of equipment reflects that. It would be folly for me to rush out and buy a 400mm f2.8 lens on the basis that he bought one for himself and loves it. Similarly, he has great things to say about the D100 camera, but he is still using the D1H for his professional needs, whereas I prefer the higher resolution capabilities of the D100 to the speed of the D1H. Make the choice for yourself, whether it be for full frame or higher resolution or larger buffer. Only you know what you need and though it may be interesting to compare what another photographer who produces similar photos as you, uses, it still ultimately is a choice you need to make based on what works for you. And if it comes down to $200 being the deal breaker, so be it. |
|
Correspondence & About this website Copyright © 1998-2008 Edwin Leong |
|
  |
|
Edwin's
Vignettes - Full
Frame and High Resolution
We
can clearly see that the two main competitors in the professional
D-SLR market, Canon and Nikon, have taken different paths. Canon producing
the very well regarded 1Ds with a full-frame CMOS sensor and 11 megapixels
of resolution to boot, whereas Nikon has chosen to continue with the
half-size CCD device and address the wide-angle concerns by producing
a 12-24mm DX series lens that provides 18-36mm equivalent coverage.
Now,
readers may recall that I did recently spend $3000 on the Nikon 70-200
VR lens, so it’s not as if I can cry destitution too much; however,
I try to pick and choose equipment carefully for their relevance to
my photographic needs. That 70-200 VR was not decided at a moment’s
notice, it was decided on the basis that it met some workflow problems
in low ambient light conditions. Being a zoom lens also meant being
a far more versatile lens than a single focal one and that VR is wickedly
good and delicious. It was justified even if it cost double the lens
that it replaced in my kit. Also keep in mind that I only own all
of three lenses for my Nikon cameras, an 18-35, 35-70, 70-200, all
zooms and that is it. The VR lens has been the most extravagant lens
purchase I’ve made to date and believe me when I say that it hurt
the old and now very thin wallet.